Thursday, January 10, 2013

Registration of firearms of any kind cannot and should not be permitted, both due to its historical use in subsequent confiscations and because it is a clear violation of the Second Amendment, being a law that clearly hinders the right to bear arms. However, there is now another powerful argument to use against registration, which is the way that anti-gun media organizations are making public the lists of registered gun owners:

A gossip site has taken the controversial decision to post the name of every licensed gun owner in New York City online as the debate over gun control rages on. Gawker posted the list of names, which is already publicly available, today. It follows the move by the Journal News to publish home addresses of gun permit owners in Westchester and Rockland counties last month.

No doubt Nick Denton, Gawker's owner, will soon be cowering behind armed guards like the Journal News editor, Caryn A. McBride. It is clear that at least some of these anti-gunners are looking for a war. That they are dumb enough to seek one with a people who are clearly armed and more than willing to fight to defend their Second Amendment rights staggers the imagination. I suspect, that like the Germans and the Japanese before them, they mistake the American people's reluctance to fight for an unwillingness or an inability to do so.

I can't help but notice that Denton, like Piers Morgan, is another Redcoat attempting to disarm the Americans. Even after more than 200 years, they still haven't learned.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?...

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough." - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

291 Comments:

Solzhenitsyn quote is perfect. God grant us opened eyes to break us out of this moral uncertainty. The scales have tipped. The government clearly thinks we're ripe to have our liberty trampled . It IS that bad already.

Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn’t know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state.

Even in England we were pretty successful. I heard the other day that in that country a man could not, without a permit, cut down his own tree with his own axe, make it into planks with his own saw, and use the planks to build a toolshed in his own garden.

It is clear that at least some of these anti-gunners are looking for a war. That they are dumb enough to seek one with a people who are clearly armed and more than willing to fight to defend their Second Amendment rights staggers the imagination. I suspect, that like the Germans and the Japanese before them, they mistake the American people's reluctance to fight for an unwillingness or an inability to do so.

No, I suspect that these fascists/progressives think that they already have the Police State they need to enforce their will, and a President who is willing to use said State power.

Having said that publicly, I suspect the FBI will be at my door anytime now.

"It is clear that at least some of these anti-gunners are looking for a war."

It's inevitable its what leftists do when they are not helping banksters rob the people.

"The collectivists idolize only the one true church, only the great nation . . . only the true state; everything else they condemn. For that reason all collectivists doctrines are harbingers of irreconcilable hatred and war to the death." - Mises

I reviewed the Jones/Morgan confrontation. This is one of several responses I made on youtube, to others viewing same:

Most people are cowards. 7000+ comments in this thread proves the point. AJ understands warfare. Morgan does not. CNN invited AJ into their territory and Jones pounced. What Jones displayed was righteous indignation. A lot more of us need the courage 2 do the same. Forget those who think and label one crazy. That person is﻿ simply a coward and does not want 2 face the lions den. I don't think most people here understand what CNN is. Who funds it. Who Ted Turner is. Who's Turner's overlords are.

There are 7000+ comments in that thread. If one wishes to, you can fish out my other comments. But, the one above, the one I most recently posted, encompasses it all. (I'm fooser77 here)

"they mistake the American people's reluctance to fight for an unwillingness or an inability to do so."

You sure about that, Tom B? Because from where I sit, we mostly look like a bunch of morons who would just hand over the guns when the police come knocking for them. I hope I'd be braver than that, but most of the people I know would just grumble a little and do what they're told. They're still far too attached to mere life to worry about whether it's a free one or not.

UNITED States of America - It can now be reported that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered criminal U.S. Treasury Secretary, money launderer and check kiter, Timothy Geithner, to resign in advance of the final implementation of the Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocols aka the bilateral tax agreement between the IMF, Austrian banks and the U.S. Treasury.

The new U.S. Treasury Secretary-to-be Jack Lew is the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and is totally familiar with the Protocols and the Leo Wanta case, along with the corruption in the state of Wisconsin, and upon confirmation, he will quickly implement the bilateral tax agreement with Austrian banks, the IMF and the U.S. Treasury.

P.S. The need for Protocol implementation is paramount given that Chinese banks reference HSBC Hong Kong and U.S. insurance carrier AIG now have massive derivative exposure to insolvent banks like Bank of America and U.S. Citibank at a prorated ratio of 1,000 to 1.

P.P.S. This pending financial meltdown, combined with the Chinese-Japanese ongoing financial and territorial war, is capable of collapsing all Pan Asia foreign currencies, which will lead to a worldwide equity meltdown.

In closing, stay tuned for future intelligence briefings, which will explore the latest shake up in the alleged financial regulators aka the SEC, the CFTC and the NFA.

Future intelligence briefings will now deal directly with the alleged financial regulators complicity and conspiracy to frame and destroy small ma and pa brokerage houses that had the best interests of their clients, so as to loot the accounts and hand them over to crooked banks like JP Morgan Chase.

We will also divulge how the crooked financial regulators allow banks like JP Morgan Chase to use the funds and investments of average Americans, using bankruptcy courts and other law firms to do more illegal derivative trading.

The alleged financial regulators and their stooge attorneys actually bill each other while the private investors' funds remain in crooked bank limbo.

Special Message One Marine to another It is time We Defend America From all Foreign and Domestic Enemies within,

Prepare for massive Arrests of Corrupt Public Officials, follow rule of Law and the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and your States Constitution. We must maintain order. We are the Front Line and always have been.—Stew Webb

No, I suspect that these fascists/progressives think that they already have the Police State they need to enforce their will, and a President who is willing to use said State power.

True. The Leftists also fall prey to their own normalcy bias. They came for our wealth and we did nothing. They came for our children and we did nothing. They came for our healthcare system and we did nothing. Why would they expect serious resistance when they come for our guns? Make no mistake, it is a huge miscalculation on their part, but they have reasons for feeling as confident and complacent as they do. Why would they worry about a backlash over stealing a few hundred million firearms when they already get away with molesting women and children in front of their husbands and fathers in our airports?

There are times in a man's life when he must make unequivocal choices that reflect his most deeply held beliefs and lay bare his conscience for all the world to see. How a man chooses reveals his true character far more emphatically than any amount of words ever can. There are also times in the course of history when men must choose a course of action that is not asked of every generation. Whether we choose the godless security of ignoble slavery or choose to fight for the divinely ordained liberty that is our inalienable birthright, such a time for choosing is at hand. Choose wisely whether you would serve the Creator who endowed you with life and liberty or whether you would serve instead a worldly master who promises many things, but delivers only death in the end. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

It was all propoganda. And it played out perfectly. Notice they didn't invite Buchanan.

Despite all the keyboard commandoes, of which I am willing to bet more than a few work for the State, people will quietly turn in their guns and get in the cattle cars. The Military will follow orders, and force them to.

I suppose, this is more on topic with this thread. We are in a revolution. Denninger et al say, "We have to arrest and prosecute these crooks!" Then others say, (some of which are of the Ilk) "It will never happen. These guys are too powerful. We can never win!"

Oh ye of little faith. Does one think the Berlin Wall came down overnight? What was going on behind the scenes, prior to that? We didn't even have an internet back then in '89, and prior to that. Most couldn't know, unless one was implementing a BBS via DOS, via a 300k (or less) modem. Or possessed short wave radio, or was a ham operator.

As surely as the Berlin Wall fell, the Wanta Protocols will be implemented. Do you really know that Wanta was the "junkyard dog," working with Colby and Casey, reporting directly to Reagan, that ensured that that Berlin Wall would fall?

Because of the personal computer (which most didn't have back in '89), and the World Wide Web, we are allowed to witness history in the making. Be grateful for that.

This gun (Second Amendment) debate, and challenge to the collectivists, is surely part of the mix in this revolution. Surely as much as SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) was part of the mix, together with the shorting of the SUR, in bringing down the Soviet economy, crushing what we formerly called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Ye of little faith. Have some faith for a change. Know that there might just be some future for your children and grandchildren, in this temporal world of ours, until such time the Creator decides (not us) times is finally up...

We're not in one yet. Not until someone on either side starts shooting. And the idea that there won't be a thousand Booths because Americans are so fat and happy appears to have evaporated with the financial meltdown in 2008. I doubt Homeland Security has been stocking up on ammunition for the fun of it.

And I don't think it was mere happenstance that the commander of the Lexington militia was dying of tuberculosis. Those with nothing to lose tend to be at the forefront when sacrifice is necessary.

My impression is that there are more than a few people on both sides just waiting for a shoe to drop. I imagine it's a little like what it must have felt like watching the two sides face off at Camlann.

> An American Patriot will not wait for them to come to knock at their door. The 300 did not wait they > went there to fight. It is time for the American Patriot to go after them.

All talk no action. The 2nd amendment has already failed. All that's happening now is the negotiation of the terms of surrender. No matter what happens, there will not be a civil war. The gun owners will not rebel. There won't be a mass insurrection.

It's all fantasy of a small slice of the population who imagines themselves half as brave as Syrian, Libyan, or Taliban rebel.

If 200+ years of gun regulations haven't done it, another here or there isn't going to change anything.

[page 12-13]Universal innocence also gave rise to the universal failure to act. Maybe they won't take you? Maybe it will all blow over? ... The majority sit quietly and dare to hope. Since you aren't guilty, then how can they arrest you? It's a mistake! They are already dragging you along by the collar, and you still keep on exclaiming to yourself: "It's a mistake! They'll set things straight and let me out!" Others are being arrested en masse, and that's a bothersome fact, but in those other cases there is always some dark area: "Maybe he was guilty ... ?" But as for you, you are obviously innocent! You still believe that Organs [of government] are humanly logical institutions: they will set things straight and let you out.

Why, then, should you run away? And how can you resist right then? After all, you’ll only make your situation worse; you will make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake. And it isn't just that you don't put up any resistance; you even walk down the stairs on tiptoe, as you are ordered to do, so your neighbors won't hear.

...

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the down-stairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of a half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur - what if it had been driven off of or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt.

If .... if... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation ... we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! ... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

...

[Page 17] ... so why did I keep silent? Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself.

How does registering gun ownership prevent or inhibit or infringe upon the right to bear arms?

First, because it is a law that denies gun ownership without said registration. If the law forbids the ownership of an unregistered gun or otherwise penalizes non-registration, it is a clear violation of the Second Amendment. Second, because historically it is a measure that is soon followed by confiscation.

> And the idea that there won't be a thousand Booths because Americans are so fat and happy appears > to have evaporated with the financial meltdown in 2008. I doubt Homeland Security has been stocking > up on ammunition for the fun of it.

This isn't speculation. Americans are actually fat. Overwhelmingly. And many of those who are fat are clinically obese. The idea of actually having to physically run, fire, and hide is a joke.

Unless I missed something in the news since 9/11, not one single low class retard TSA airport screener has had his ass beaten to a pulp at the security checkpoint for molesting people and their children, yet suddenly the people are ready to engage in armed warfare with the govt. Doubtful, but I hope I'm wrong.

First, because it is a law that denies gun ownership without said registration. If the law forbids the ownership of an unregistered gun or otherwise penalizes non-registration, it is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Do you believe the 2nd amendment demands literally unlimited gun ownership? Trying to determine if there is a general opposition here to new restrictions as well as existing regulations?

I.E. in your opinion the 2nd amendment permits Congress to make no law regarding firearms?

Stop being a moron and a coward. Grow a backbone for a change. This is war. This is warfare. Do you understand that?

My dad told me, back in '80, prior to going to USMC boot camp, that they would transform me into a wild animal. An animal programmed to attack and KILL on command. That is what a Marine, a soldier does in war.

Read some of the accounts, of Japanese soldiers, that survived Okinawa. What they said about us. How we fought. Read same, about what the Germans said about a forest in France, in 1917/1918.

This nation. Too many of its people have become pussified. Alex Jones (for all his faults) is of that remnant of courage, that we once had. That Yamamoto feared, and instructed his Emperor not to engage in a war with America. Get that through your skull.

-----------[1] Skip to "EVEN THE FOLKS DOING THE DIRTY WORK FOR THE THIRD FORCE ARE WAKING UP FROM THEIR SLUMBER" and read to the end. Then go back to the beginning, to understand the entire proper context. Where it talks about "Rules of Play," this is exactly what Saussy discusses in his Rulers of Evil. Cain has boundaries. He cannot overstep them. If he does, there is a price to pay.

Unless I missed something in the news since 9/11, not one single low class retard TSA airport screener has had his ass beaten to a pulp at the security checkpoint for molesting people and their children, yet suddenly the people are ready to engage in armed warfare with the govt.

Why do you assume everyone has been flying with their women and children during the TSA era?

After reading David Crockett's autobiography, I've never had any doubt about the inevitable results of any gun grabs in America.

On his way to Texas, Mr. Crockett and a few buddies were attacked by a group of 30 or so Indians. After shooting all of them, they tossed the bodies in a dwelling, torched the place, bandaged up their wounds, and then went and had lunch.

Because of women's suffrage, and because of mass immigration of non-whites; laws will be passed towards confiscation. That's a given.

But, passing laws is one thing. Taking guns from people with Scots-Irish blood is quite another. They'll be a'layin' in wait underneath their trailers, aiming for that little patch of skin betwixt the eyebrows.

All talk no action. The 2nd amendment has already failed. All that's happening now is the negotiation of the terms of surrender. No matter what happens, there will not be a civil war. The gun owners will not rebel. There won't be a mass insurrection.

Absolutely correct. Vox, you have been out of the US for too long if you think there will be any significant shooting or an insurrection. I put as much stock in your prediction of a rebellion as the rest of your political predictions. I think they are wrong because you just don't understand how fat, passive, and even dumber the American public has become in the last 10 years.

dh saysI don't suppose the TSA or the police will be the main fighting force once whatever fantasy land events happen happen. Not all police,TSA and military individuals are going to follow the orders. Should a revolution or civil war happen the law enforcement and military will be divided. The gun control government will only have the individuals that wear those blue helmets to do the dirty work.If only 3% of the population decides to fight the law Enforcement and military will be out numbered

And the idea that there won't be a thousand Booths because Americans are so fat and happy appears to have evaporated with the financial meltdown in 2008.

If they shoot they lose 2 years of unemployment benefits and food stamps. There's a lot to lose for the low class still. As soon as they are all on Obamacare there will even be more to lose. When the gravy train stops then we can look around, but by then we will likely be disarmed.

"dh January 10, 2013 7:45 AM... All talk no action. The 2nd amendment has already failed. All that's happening now is the negotiation of the terms of surrender. No matter what happens, there will not be a civil war. The gun owners will not rebel. There won't be a mass insurrection.

It's all fantasy of a small slice of the population who imagines themselves half as brave as Syrian, Libyan, or Taliban rebel.

If 200+ years of gun regulations haven't done it, another here or there isn't going to change anything."

Your analysis falls down. The men in America's military have been facing down Al Qaeda and Taliban for more than a decade. Those military men are Americans just like most folks that read this blog. A great many of those military men are civilians now.

Do you even wonder why DHS put veterans on its list of potential threats to federal governance?

> Being fat has nothing to do with be able to shoot a gun or keep an individual from > fighting for what they believe in.

Wait are we talking symbolically about just fighting, or are we talking about winning? If you are asking for these fat arm chair patriots to just "fight", as in, lose, well sure. If you are talking about facing determined opposition for extended periods of time that's a different conversation. And being used to conveince food, sedentary living, warm sleeping and personal comforts are not likely to be part of the envisioned upcoming fight.

This is good to understand, thank you. I think it actually makes the repeal of the 2nd amendment more likely if this is the direction that gun activists take. Moving towards repeal of regulation on fully automatic weapons, gun ownership for felons, gun ownership by minors, de-regulation of weapons and ammunition traditionally reserved for the military, and the removal of barriers for weapon sales to the mentally ill is probably the best thing that can happen for gun-control activists.

"Why do you assume everyone has been flying with their women and children during the TSA era?" VD

Amen brother. My family hasn't been on a plane since the backscatters were put in place and the goons started doing pre-boarding heavy petting. Admittedly, it's a major PITA because airplanes were a fine invention, but we'll get along.

Apparently my attempt to <quote didn't work because the part you assume was written by me - "they mistake the American people's reluctance to fight for an unwillingness or an inability to do so" - was written by Vox.

My own words about the subject begin at "No, I suspect that these fascists/progressives think that they already have the Police State they need to enforce their will, and a President who is willing to use said State power." Just to clarify.

I've just realized something. TPTB must act now in regards to gun confiscation, before the financial meltdown. Once the economy goes bad the radicalization of great swaths of this country will begin. Hungry people stop being civilized at a certain point and they become animals in order to feed themselves.

You will not convince a person with nothing left to lose that it is in his best interest to give up his arms.

When I use the word radicalization I mean it in the fullest sense of the word. They will become more reflexively violent. They will begin to discard previous beliefs. They will begin to search out new ways of seeing the world. Those of you that got laughed at for talking about a horrifically dire future will suddenly become sought out for counsel.

> Your analysis falls down. The men in America's military have been facing down Al > Qaeda and Taliban for more than a decade. Those military men are Americans just like > most folks that read this blog. A great many of those military men are civilians now.

A good slice are civilians now, for sure. But on the other hand, there are many tens of thousands who are not.

Do you even wonder why DHS put veterans on its list of potential threats to federal governance?No doubt at all. Veterans have a lot of the training and faculties needed to wage war, if not all of them. They also have made the decision to leave the military, which means that for whatever reason, they are not personally attached to military service.

It is of course hard to predict what the government would do with a legitimate insurrection. There is one school of thinking I read alot whihc suggests that the govenrment would use as much as force as possible to respond, as a sort of warning to others. There is a certain appeal in that to the rebels because there is a chance of blowback from the general public. Another school of thinking is that the government would use normal law enforcement to put down the insurrection, and attempt to simply treat the rebels as criminals. I suppose it depends on what the government supposes would be most popular way to deal with it.

Alex did it exactly the way you’re supposed to do it when you want to destroy the whole stinking mess all at once. You give no quarter. You go on the attack from the first moment. You don’t let up.

You ignore the nicey-nice stuff.

I’m sure there are some boomer gun advocates out there who think Alex “presented an unfortunate face of the responsible gun-owner community.” They’re dead wrong. They don’t understand what an attack against tyranny requires. They never have. [really, you don't say?]You put the fascists on the defensive. That’s rule number one. You put them through the wall into the next county. You hit them with the truth so hard they never recover. That’s the goal.

It happened last night. [comments and emphasis mine]

Well, if any single soul here disagrees with me, and methods I advocate, then I do know that I have an ally in Rappoport. We are on the exact same page. Gee, this is what Rappoport also said:

"If HarperCollins had really understood what a publishing event they had on their hands when they brought out this book, it might have been a best seller by now.

"Tupper Saussy has given us all a lesson in what real history writing is all about—and such lessons are hard to come by. Saussy firmly establishes, once and for all, how deep the plannings of societal takeovers can go.

"In my 20 years as a reporter, I have read many books that provided useful information, but I have read only a few that showed me how to sift great amounts of information to arrive at a platform from which I could continue to understand isolated facts. RULERS OF EVIL is one of the few.

"Let me put it this way: Reading RULERS OF EVIL is four years of post-graduate work at a university that should, but does not exist."

So that is why Mr. Rappoport and I are on the same exact page. Anyone else here, like to join us? (I do know, that some of you already are, without naming names. You know who you are.)

> If only 3% of the population decides to fight the law Enforcement and military will > be out numbered

3% would be roughly 10 million. But that 3% would be straight across the board, and include more old people and children and women and than not. To get to 10 million white men of roughly fighting age, you would need a different equation.

I think you need to factor out illegal immigrants and recent legal immigrants - they aren't likely to choose sides. That's 50-60 million. Reducing down to 250 million. 13% +/- of those are blacks. That's about 215 million left. Women are half. I would give you that there some to many capable women who can fight, but VD may disagree and demand that they be purged from the pool. So I would peel 1/2 of the women off from the pool. That leaves about 160 million. Age 15-64 is 67% of the population, the rest is over or under. That leaves a pool of about 105 million potential effective fighters. If you want to expand on the edges some, it could be 120 million or more. I've seen some tough 75 year olds I wouldn't want to mess with it. And actually the same for 14 year olds.

So to get to 10 million effective combatants, you need to get between 8% and 10% of your target demographic.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is it that you don't understand?This is a really fascinating topic because it goes against about 200 years of actual law.

Between conspiracy talk about Newtown being a false flag, and a sort of fantasy view of civil war, it's sort of bizarre to wonder why a small minority thinks we are going to repeal existing laws on automatic weapons, background checks, etc. But that is apparently what the discussion is about right now?

I think they are wrong because you just don't understand how fat, passive, and even dumber the American public has become in the last 10 years.

I'd take your opinion more seriously if I'd seen you predict the mass gun buying that has been taking place for the last four years. Look, wars are predictable. Everyone knows they're going to happen before they do. And what we're seeing in the USA is following the usual pattern of armies preparing for mobilization.

Events always take longer to kick off than those who anticipate them think. And they always occur faster than those who don't anticipate them believe possible.

If she herself had had any picture of the future, it had been of a society of animals set free from hunger and the whip, all equal, each working according to his capacity, the strong protecting the weak, as she had protected the lost brood of ducklings with her foreleg on the night of Major's speech. Instead--she did not know why--they had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes. There was no thought of rebellion or disobedience in her mind.

"Between conspiracy talk about Newtown being a false flag, and a sort of fantasy view of civil war, it's sort of bizarre to wonder why a small minority thinks we are going to repeal existing laws on automatic weapons, background checks, etc. But that is apparently what the discussion is about right now?"

Interesting as that all may be, it has nothing at all to do with the question you were asked. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you find ambiguous?

dh saysWait are we talking symbolically about just fighting, or are we talking about winning? If you are asking for these fat arm chair patriots to just "fight", as in, lose, well sure. If you are talking about facing determined opposition for extended periods of time that's a different conversation. And being used to conveince food, sedentary living, warm sleeping and personal comforts are not likely to be part of the envisioned upcoming fight.

dh it sounds as if your saying one side is fat a lazy and the other side is fit and more determined to win. I guess there are no skinny lazy gun control people.

It is ones mental state that will determine their resolve not the physical state

> And when you get down to it it really doesn't matter because "EVERYONE IN TEXAS IS > ARMED TO THE TEETH".

> COME AND TAKE IT!

Why does everyone think its' going to be door to door confiscation? That's not how the government works.

I think in 20 minutes of trying I could come up methods that would get 2/3 of the gun owners to turn over their weapons.

First whack at it:

1. Subpoena records from banks and credit card companies and large companies to find people who have probably bought guns either online or in stores. Ignore small gun dealers.

2. Freeze bank accounts.

3. Suspend all transfer payments from the government. No social security, no checks.

4. 100% surtax on any investment changes - 401k, retirement, etc.

5. Automatic no fly list.

6. Automatic failure of e-verify. Oh, did you actually think that the same things in put place to suppress illegals would never be turned on Americans? Huh. Remember, employers can be shut down now if they don't comply with e-verify.

7. Automatic DEA hold on all prescriptions drug prescribed. Oh, did you actually think that all those things put in place to fight the war on drugs would never be turned on Americans? Huh.

8. States with high gun ownership will be assessed large surtaxes on refined fuel, electricity delivery, and income taxes. States will have the burden to prove that gun ownership is under control.

That's enough to seperate the wanna-be's from the ones you really have to watch out for.

This administration is diabolical, evil, anti-Constitutional and blatantly treasonous. This fight is not about protecting our right to bear arms, it's about using our guns for the very reason the Founding Fathers envisioned.

And being used to conveince food, sedentary living, warm sleeping and personal comforts are not likely to be part of the envisioned upcoming fight.

You don't have any clue what 4th generation warfare is, do you. The next conflict isn't going to resemble Red Dawn. It's going to resemble Peru vs the Shining Path.

It is of course hard to predict what the government would do with a legitimate insurrection.

It's not going to be "insurrection". As I said, there is a logical case to be made that the big FEMA camps aren't for containment, but protection. I don't think you understand how difficult it is when it comes to identifying and catching a single killer with a known personal connection to the victim. You're not grasping the scope and scale of the situation, nor the significance of the "domestic terrorist" designation.

This is a really fascinating topic because it goes against about 200 years of actual law.

That's nice. There is no such thing as "law" in the USA. It's a fiction to which an increasing number of Americans no longer subscribe.

Interesting as that all may be, it has nothing at all to do with the question you were asked. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you find ambiguous?Infringed.

That's what it's all hinged on for 200 years. Rights are already present, not granted by the Constitution. Hence "infringe". It's a great description. The Constitution and 2nd amendment recognizes and defends the inherent, God given right to self defense with whatever arms you deem appropriate. Something that reduces that God-given right is an infringement.

As far as registering and turning in your guns, I suggest getting on your knees while filling out the notifications. I also suggest crawling to the collection station with guns in tow. Address all government workers as Master. Offer up your wife and daughters while you are there. Maybe it will gain you favor.....

Not quite -- there are issues of practicality that limit the availability of arms. Most people cannot have the weapons they may "deem appropriate" simply because they cannot afford them. So raising the issue of nuclear weapons, etc. is a red herring.

> That's nice. There is no such thing as "law" in the USA. It's a fiction to which an > increasing number of Americans no longer subscribe.

Right. I am getting it, slowly apparently.

Why not set up some testable predictions about the coming battle, VD, so that we can measure your civil unrest projections. I think you will be less accurate here than predicting politics. So let's run an experiment.

As far as 4th generation warfare, this is an interesting concept as well. Do you suppose there are enough Americans who will go this way? This isn't signing up for a "winter of discontent", this is a generational struggle. In the 30 years that the Shining Path has been fighting, they have had ups an downs, but are more or less "down" right now.

If, as you think, there are Americans who are going to go "Shining Path" on us, and won't respect law, than why wouldn't government simply act preemptively?

Maybe someone needs to say it a little bit more explicitly, but is the present discontent political opposition to further gun control, or an organizing committee for resisting future changes? Or maybe something else.

I'd take your opinion more seriously if I'd seen you predict the mass gun buying that has been taking place for the last four years. Look, wars are predictable. Everyone knows they're going to happen before they do. And what we're seeing in the USA is following the usual pattern of armies preparing for mobilization.

Buying a gun and using a gun are two different things entirely. dh already laid out several ways to get the majority of these guns out of the hands of their owners. A nation of Honey Boo Boos and cube dwellers starting a shooting war with even fat police? Laughable.

When Honey Boo Boo is thin because she's starving and the cubes are mostly gone then, and only then, will people risk bullets. As I've said before by that time the people will be mostly disarmed.

Many men and women in the military are military brats. The old vets aren't likely to be in a mood to comply with any illegal gun laws.... and I don't think their active duty children are going to want to shoot dad for the likes of the ilk in Washington...

DH, is there some point at which even you would draw the line and say enough is enough? Is there some point even you would fight for what you believe?

I think you feel like you know me better than you do. I will give you the 10 second version:

1. I do not believe in God. (Or any other god).

2. Of course therefore, I do not believe in God-given rights.

3. I have personally killed a person. With my hands and a stick/rod of metal. In defense of another person. I was much younger. I am not sure if I would do it again.

4. I've been around war, but not fought one. Even in a technical capacity, supporting war from 10+ miles from the actual fighting, it's a lot scarier than I think most Americans who have never been near war think. I don't think virtually any of of the people promising armed resistance have any clue what they are promising.

5. I think most people dramatically over estitimate their own apetitie for violence. It's one thing to have the ability for it in a pinch, it's another to methodically be trained for it over a long-period of time.

6. There are not anything I can think of outside of personal defense that would result in a decision to take violence. I.e., there is no action the government could take that would provoke a violent response, short of violence against me.

Note that the united states military is in year twelve of fighting 4gw against insurgents in Afghanistan. The Taliban and other insurgent groups have am estimated 30k troops. The coalition doing the occupying has 300k. And they're still not winning. 10:1 ratio.

Now, even if only 1 million or 2 million gun nuts decide to go wolverine on the gun grabbers, Afghanistan shows us that they would have to be met with an army of 10 or 20 million just to fight the gun nuts to a standstill.

Not quite -- there are issues of practicality that limit the availability of arms. Most people cannot have the weapons they may "deem appropriate" simply because they cannot afford them. So raising the issue of nuclear weapons, etc. is a red herring.Right, I am not interested in that path or super extremes. I think it was Scalia who noted the concept of "hand held", i.e. "bearing" arms. At the time of the writing, there were cannons and such. And they were not expected to be covered. So unless someone else has a problem, I think we can mostly disarm that sort of silly line of thinking. Nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, battle tanks, mounted weapons like a track vehicle with a .50 cal, etc. Not covered under the 2nd amendment?

And yes, I believe self defense to be a universal right.This is interesting, I am not sure I can agree. On this basis, should a prisoner be able to bring his or her firearm to prison for self-defense?

trk January 10, 2013 8:15 AM The gov will try to ban microblogging after guns. No law abiding citizen needs more than 10 characters.

There have been many hints they want to shut down the Blogs. Many more that they serve an important function by letting the State know where the problem people are and what they think. Nothing you say on electronic communications is secure. All can, and probably is, monitored.

Act accordingly.

And stop talking about war. You are playing right into the other sides play book.

"I think in 20 minutes of trying I could come up methods that would get 2/3 of the gun owners to turn over their weapons.First whack at it:1. Subpoena... 2. Freeze...etc."

I think you're forgetting something rather important here. You see, the people whose lives your measures are designed to make unliveable, are angry people who own guns, remember?

One of the interesting things about this conflict is that the real gun control nuts are all the weeniest of the weenies, who completely rely upon heavily armed prole non-weenies who don't read David Brooks, to actually enforce their weenie pronunciamientos. When the going gets tough, who will defend the weenies? The Seventy-First New York Times Volunteers Battalion? I smell a lot of autres who will be encouragees rather instanter.

To paraphrase Carl Sandburg, What if they gave a war and no one protected the weenies?

I'm pretty certain Martha's Vineyard could easily be reduced by a squadron of determined twelve-year-olds. Tenure isn't a magic power that can forever keep a bien-pensant dip-shit from dangling on the wrong end of a rope.

Has anyone noticed that neither Romney nor Ryan has made a single peep regarding this heated, ongoing national debate regarding gun-control? It's quite telling and reveals what so many conservatives already knew. These jokers don't represent us anymore than Obama does.

Conservatives have no representation in a government that is hostile towards them. It's tails they win, heads we lose, but half the population is not going to roll over and die. There will be blood.

Tiny Tim:The military swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States..... an executive order will not impress the Alpha's in the military. They will refuse and all hell will break loose..........

Uh huh. The constitution is toilet paper to a significant percentile of the military - especially in the higher officer ranks. McChrystal just came out in favor of gun control, to give one example. If were any large number of patriots in the military, the stinking lawless banksta regime in Sodom-on-Potomac would have been overthrown decades ago.

As for the rule of law as the anklebiter likes to chirp about, note that yet another "court" shot down an attempt to do something about Corzine walking away with a cool 1.2 billion in stolen funds. Yes indeed we have the rule of law here in the Banksta Banana Republick - one law for the squids and another for the zeks and proles.

Yes. That’s right folks. One day, when TSH’sTF, Law Enforcement Officers will suddenly become your new liberty friends. Because?

That is why people scout their own neighborhoods and make their own lists.

dh, not only do you live under a rock, you live under a rock on a different planet. You want and project, really really bad, for Americans to just flop like so much pudding. They can not be everywhere. They can not strike all at once. And their initial strike may be partially successful... not to mention a few dead mothers and her children. But word will spread like wildfire. And you, underestimate what a few dedicated and trained people can and will do. The Shining Path are pikers.

If there isn't a point at which you would support a law that restricted you in some way, without agreeing with that law, than it's pretty much useless to discuss.

Most, I believe, would agree that a law restricting speed through town to, say, 35mph and not allowing 90 is quite agreeable. Then again, it should be obvious to anyone that doing 90 could well cause one to ruin their whole life and that of someone else so they'd not do it in the first place.

Law is not restrictive in and of itself. It merely proscribes penalties for certain acts, like murder or burglary. If law could actually restrict human behavior we'd not have had mass killings in gun free zones, now would we?

An individual ownership of an aircraft carrier isn't much different than, say, Ted Turner's ownership of CNN. The only difference is that CNN has done far more damage to this country than any aircraft carrier ever could.

Prisoners most certainly do have the right to self defense. The rule of law allows society as a whole to infringe on that right only when a person has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt they have violated the rights of others. Any other violation of an individual's right to self defense is illegitimate.

Indeed. Your ignorance would try the patience of a saint. Any law that violates the Constitution is void ab initio.And here we are again.

"violates" according to... you?

In that sense, we have anarchy then. If no one will cede to a higher authority on the meaning of law, then there is no government that you can possibly accept. This isn't the first time this has been debated.

Before it's even worth talking about law, you have to make sure there is a fundamental agreement that both sides will agree to any law as legitimate. If you won't accept law, as a concept, than it's pointless.

Buying a gun and using a gun are two different things entirely. dh already laid out several ways to get the majority of these guns out of the hands of their owners. A nation of Honey Boo Boos and cube dwellers starting a shooting war with even fat police? Laughable.

When Honey Boo Boo is thin because she's starving and the cubes are mostly gone then, and only then, will people risk bullets. As I've said before by that time the people will be mostly disarmed.

Interesting, JartStar. A number of the men in Honey Boo Boo's dysfunctional, bottom of the barrel clan have been to jail more than once for gun and property theft.

It looks like even your model couch dwellers are capable of getting off of it long enough to challenge the status quo in their own limited, retarded way. I imagine that at least one of the fat lady's babydaddies will have no problem, now or in the future, in turning a gun on a deputy or agency. He's already proven he has a minimal capacity that is above the threshold you lay down.

Now, allow me to go shoot myself for even knowing what the hell a honey boo boo is.

The right to bear arms does include all weapons. a militia may need to fight foreign enemy's.

So we have a different standard to consider. That's not one I've had but it makese sense.

SO the question is, why haven't you already gone off and taken action. If you can't legally buy a fully automatic weapon, than you are being denied a God-given right.

Why aren't you already out killing government officials?

This is why I said earlier the 2nd amendment has failed. If you believe what you believe, the 2nd amendment has been dead since the 1930's. And as such, your God-given right has been infringed. You should have already acted. So why haven't you?

And what about 1 more set of restrictions is going to make going from passive anger to active fighting the correct course of action.

Before it's even worth talking about law, you have to make sure there is a fundamental agreement that both sides will agree to any law as legitimate. If you won't accept law, as a concept, than it's pointless.

I'll buy a handgun soon. I don't have any idea what to buy. It's mainly for protection of my family (and maybe some sport shooting). Should be a handgun, no rifle. Not too small, not too big. No gimmick, but should be the most reliable. Anyone care to give advice?

"If no one will cede to a higher authority on the meaning of law, then there is no government that you can possibly accept."

You've got this totally wrong. First and foremost, there has to be common understanding among parties that join together to form a government. The idea of a "higher authority" dictating the meanings of basic words and phrases such as "infringed" and "Congress shall make no law..." is the very essence of a dictatorship.

If law could actually restrict human behavior we'd not have had mass killings in gun free zones, now would we?

The Left uses political correctness to restrict human behavior and even thought itself. Their inquisition finds and destroys anyone who doesn't conform to their way of thinking. This is what outing private citizens' public information is all about. The Left doesn't care about people's rights, laws, or freedom, nor will they allow such to get in their way. Their only concern is power and control, not gun deaths or any other death.

dh and Leftists like him/her/it can only be stopped one way and many Americans are beginning to understand this on an intellectual level. At what point they will act on it remains to be seen.

A double action revolver. You can get a .357, but just load it with .38 special +p until you get really good with it and then load a few .357. A revolver is simple, incredibly reliable, and is easy to see if it is loaded.

Dear lord, but you are dim It is a simple concept, regardless of how I personally (or anyone else for that matter) would apply it. Now close your mouth and try breathing through your nose.Sorry I guess I am pretty dense.

You've got this totally wrong. First and foremost, there has to be common understanding among parties that join together to form a government. The idea of a "higher authority" dictating the meanings of basic words and phrases such as "infringed" and "Congress shall make no law..." is the very essence of a dictatorship.

So then, in your opinion, the existance of a Supreme Court that mediates disputes on questions of what the words means is proof that the US is a dictatorship.

At what point are words are okay to be interpreted by the Courts? When does a word go from "basic", therefore not able to be read differently, or not-basic, and open to intreptation?

My response is to point out that some 7th century throwbacks in Afghanistan have been fighting the US army to a stalemate.

When you are fighting for your home you will do things that you didn't think you were capable of.I don't disagree at all. But it does go both aways. Their will be many fighting against Americans who are also fighting tooth and nail. And I would imagine at somepoint the rules of engagement will be loosend, something which our forces in Afganistan haven't had the luxury of enjoying. The military won't be looking for an occupation, but pacification.

Are you honestly trying to sit here and tell us that band camp ISN'T like prison camp? How many squeaky-voiced teenage renditions of "Piano Man" do you think YOU could withstand before you gave in to whatever O'Brien demanded?

You talk about the horrors of war one minute, and the next minute you seem to be agitating for it. Personally I think you're full of it.

It would be foolish to resort to violence while the possibility of peace and mutual respect for life and individual rights still exists.

I am not agitating for it, I cannot reconcile those here who think that 1 MORE INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd amendment is too many, and it's off to fight the government. If you think the 2nd amendment has already been infringed it's 100% logical to ask why you haven't already gone off to fight the government.

What is so special about now? 5 years ago, the gun laws were the same as they were now but more restrictive. There was no 4th wave war. Nothing of substance has changed.

So again, why now, and not already?

I simply don't believe it. I think virtually everyone on this thread is completely full of it. If you haven't already taken action, there isn't any action that is going to happen that will force it.

I think all that's going on here is simply political opposition - valid of course - but still simply politicial opposition to policy changes you don't agree with. Not The seeds of violent warfare against the government.

This is a decision that every individual must make for themselves. How could it be otherwise?

This is a fine opinion to have, but it effectively means that you do not believe any law that is contrary to your own vision of government is, in your opinion void.

I sure feels like a lot of people think that the Civil War was won by the south. It was not.

The union is a union of force. You are bound to it by birth, and the law is the law, according to the political branches and mediated by the Courts. Rights are protected by law, and enforced eventually at gunpoint.

Is that clear enough? I know everyone wants to talk about 1776 and 2nd amendment remedies, but that was tried, and it failed. That union is gone, and now most of America recognizes a different America, where Lincoln is either the 1st or 2nd greatest president. The America you are thinking exists is a fictional version which has been lawyered away.

Well, I suppose that goes a long way towards explaining why people tend to distrust atheists. Find a government to tell them it's "the law" and they'll mindlessly go about obeying it. And yet, some of them call themselves "freethinkers".

SO the question is, why haven't you already gone off and taken action. If you can't legally buy a fully automatic weapon, than you are being denied a God-given right.I already own fighter jets, my machines would have no problem making the gun fully functional. Also if one wants to buy fully automatic weapons they can do it legally. The reason I have not done anything is because of my faith and trust an a government which is becoming more like the unfaithful wife that needs to get the shit kick out of her. Everybody has their limits on how much they can take.To stand still is to go backwards.To stand your ground is to retreat.It is time to advance and take ground.This can be done my militias arresting gun control individual for treason

Find a government to tell them it's "the law" and they'll mindlessly go about obeying it.

Exactly what is the diffence between this, and all of those here who claim that they will not tolerate 1 more infringement of the 2nd amendment, yet have already tolerated, in thier view, dozens of other ones?

What is about limiting the number of bullets in a magazine, or requiring background checks for person to person sales, or whatever, is substantially different that what we alreay have?

People here and elsewhere claim essentially they won' tolerate another inch, but the evidence is to the contratry. It doesn't make any sense. If everyone believes really what they say the believe, the war should have already started. But it hasn't. Which can only indicate that all the puffery online means that people don't actually believe what they say they believe.

"I am not agitating for it, I cannot reconcile those here who think that 1 MORE INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd amendment is too many, and it's off to fight the government."

Surely you're familiar with the concept of the last straw. You're simply locked into disbelief because you find the idea of people actually using force to defend their rights -- and their very lives -- uncomfortable. If you believe in no higher law and would literally follow any command you were given, it is little wonder that you cannot understand those of us who would simply refuse.

Why something can be a Right is beyond you as you reject the source. Therefore it's impossible to discuss it with you.

Right, so I can agree with this. If you believe Rights come from a higher-source, i.e. God, than it's pretty much a moot point to discuss.

I suppose than I can infer that if the 2nd amendment was repealed and replaced, that you would of course no comply with it. You are only interested in the Constution to the degree it co-incides with your religious beliefs.

People here and elsewhere claim essentially they won' tolerate another inch, but the evidence is to the contratry. It doesn't make any sense. If everyone believes really what they say the believe, the war should have already started. But it hasn't. Which can only indicate that all the puffery online means that people don't actually believe what they say they believe.

Makes me think of the economic brick wall we're up against. Oh it'll happen, one way or another.

Surely you're familiar with the concept of the last straw. You're simply locked into disbelief because you find the idea of people actually using force to defend their rights -- and their very lives -- uncomfortable. If you believe in no higher law and would literally follow any command you were given, it is little wonder that you cannot understand those of us who would simply refuse.

I am familiar with the last straw. It's not that it makes me uncomfortable. Because honestly, I have no problem with people owning guns. It doesn't bother me at all.

You are slightly distorting what I said in that I would not follow "any command you were given".

But we are talking but here is not rejecting an order. What is being discussed here in this thread is active rebellion - "4th wave" warfare - assinations, economic disruption, etc.

My position is that the 2nd amendment has failed. It has not constrained government. At all. It also has not protected the right to bear arms with out restriction. It's two stated purposes are clearly failures. The reason in my opinion is because very people at any level really believe what it says to be true. Most people think it's not a good idea to let insane people buy whatever weaspons they have money for. So in spirit, they don't *really* believe in the 2nd amendment, or the concept of a God-given right to have bear weaspons. They believe it is something the government lets you do.

And given all that, I don't believe that 1 more restriction is going to set off civil unrest.

And so I have asked a few times and reiterate that we would setup a predictive test. All those who are projecting/predicting/planning what to do if 1 more regulation gets passed can put down their projections and be measured by them.

It was written for a religious people. Not suitable for anything else. Wouldn't you agre though that the document as written is not what has been running America for the last, roughly 100 years, or maybe as far back as the Civil War?

Registration of firearms of any kind cannot and should not be permitted, both due to its historical use in subsequent confiscations and because it is a clear violation of the Second Amendment, being a law that clearly hinders the right to bear arms.

There is no merit to this claim. And I suspect that is why you didn't attempt to back it up with any kind of argument. Because either you know it has no merit or you didn't want to subject your self to more ridicule.

dhwhat made you kill someone? who order you to do it. why were you defending someone else? was the other individual armed?

At a college, just off campus I walked past a woman being assaulted behind a building by an attacker. I was carrying some stuff from build-project at a lab. I intervened and had a hand to hand struggle with the assailant. I had a little height on him, probably few pounds, and he ended up deceased. Luckily I did have an approximately 2 lb piece steel airframe piping that I was able to use.

If there is no such things as "law," then we're done! Then again, most here have yet to comprehend the Third Force, and the "rules of play." Still many more have yet to come to appreciate Leo Wanta. What he has done. And, what he has yet to do. One man, pretty much brought down the Berlin Wall via shorting the SUR. Only ONE man could do it. You see, for a lot of people, he did not exist. He could not exist [officially]. Do you know what plausible deniability entails?

I'm not as defeatist and fatalistic as most think I et al should be. I'm a warrior. I will fight this good fight to the last breath my Creator chooses to take from me.

I have got to reiterate this. If there is no law, then answer me this. Let's put this way:

It can now be reported that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered criminal U.S. Treasury Secretary, money launderer and check kiter, Timothy Geithner, to resign in advance of the final implementation of the Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocols aka the bilateral tax agreement between the IMF, Austrian banks and the U.S. Treasury.

[I posted this earlier, many here are not paying attention]

Here again:

Final Protocol implementation aka the bilateral tax agreement ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will use Austrian banks as the final receiver of the funds in the amount of $30 TRILLION.

It would seem "rule of law" is working pretty good here. Especially where it counts. If there was no "law," then these orders would not have come about by the SCOTUS in the last few months. SCOTUS has acted where Wanta (and apparently Nancy Reagan) pressed and demanded.

Now so far as complying with the order is another thing. Politicians haven't been complying with orders [from courts] since 1787. As Dr. Vieira so succinctly states, "That criminals violate a law does not negate it."

There is a critical problem with perception, that eventually it can become reality. There are perceptions, rampant in this land, that need to be crushed. Crushed with facts and the truth. Alex Jones displayed how one crushes a perception. It may not be pretty. But, at times, as critical as these, it is necessary...

Final Protocol implementation aka the bilateral tax agreement ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will use Austrian banks as the final receiver of the funds in the amount of $30 TRILLION.

This reminds me of the NESARA / St. Germaine shtick that went around for years back in the '90s - early '00s. Like all declarations of end of the world at such and such a time.

so the individual was not armed. You became the judge a jury. At that time you knew nothing of the two and decided to take sides.

Yes. I do often regret getting involved. There is certainly a very low, primal response to seeing a women being assaulted. I have seen various women being slapped, grabbed, pushed etc around since and not had the same response to seeing a women being really whaled on.

I will also say, it is somewhat unsettling to have your "filter" turned off. Civilization goes out the window and it is really intense.

"Everyone who isn't leaving or currently fighting please take note here because if you aren't doing the either you have given tacit consent."

O my, the AP tag team of dh and Jetstar is getting tiresome.

By this logic there is none, no, not one person existing in the USA who is not giving tacit consent, because no-one is shooting (yet).

Yawn.......look, resistance and fighting doesn't start with the hot war. It's been going on for a long time. My guess is the MSM is highly dissuaded from reporting anything that makes the resisters look successful at all.

If a band of jack booted thugs come to my door my door to seize any firearms in my house they will not be met by any resistance other than a simple, calm statement that I do not consent to them entering my house or searching for anything, and then silence. I expect to get pretty roughed up, maybe even killed for doing that, but I am not going to try delivering my guns bullet first under those circumstances. The only plans I'm considering are ones that involve me and my guns not being there if or when that time comes. Hopefully I have enough time to execute those plans, but just trying to earn my meager living keeps me very busy.

For *me* to do anything else is just ineffective suicide by cop. I am currently not prepared to do anything else, and as hard as I have tried to look far and wide for a doable plan that would have even a 50% chance of being effective, I have not found any that I could give even a modicum of faith or hope. I have reason to believer others have, thousands of them.

But that does not mean I am not "fighting". To talk about how on a public blog would be foolish, so I will leave it at that. Firearms are not necessarily required to fight.

And it would not take millions to resist. 20-30k of determined, motivated, and prepared insurgents can find all kinds of creative ways to do so. Notice Nate has not piped in here? (unless I missed it, haven't read all the comments). I imagine he and his ilk are not flappin' their jaws bemoaning their inevitable defeat. A few more thousands like them and you have enough of a rebellion to be historically significant. "Success" is a moving target.

Let's place in brackets for the moment, the notion that gun-owning rights are universal and basically unrestricted and unrestrictable, as they are acknowledged by our founding documents to be a prior right (in other words, it doesn't matter whether you believe God exists or Who or Where your rights came from; if you subscribe to the American covenant of government, then you perforce accept that certain rights are indeed prior, and that this is one of them).

Let's posit for the moment that, within certain bounds of reason, Congress does have the legislative power to place certain reasonable (as in "commonly held to be reasonable", not as in "commonly held by the NYT to be reasonable") restrictions on gun ownership.

So let's say that this legislation comes before Congress. I place before you a few possible options:

1. The legislation passes in both houses of Congress without resort to procedural skullduggery. It looks clean, even to partisan observers. Obama signs it, and now it's law.

2. The legislation passes as above, but the NRA and its amici curiae bring suit, and the law is eventually overturned and nullified by the Supreme Court.

3. The legislation is defeated by the GOP in the House, and by a margin of Reagan Dems in the Senate. Issue now moot.

3. The legislation is defeated as described above in (3) or overturned as in (2), but Obama, rather than letting it alone, attempts to circumvent the legitimate, lawful decisions taken by Congress, through a series of egregious Executive Orders.

Would you acknowledge a difference in quality between or among any of these scenarios? Would any of them, in your view, provide a reasonable justification for escalating defiance by any of the partisan sides, up to and including use of arms?

in other words, it doesn't matter whether you believe God exists or Who or Where your rights came from; if you subscribe to the American covenant of government, then you perforce accept that certain rights are indeed prior, and that this is one of them).Agreed.

Let's posit for the moment that, within certain bounds of reason, Congress does have the legislative power to place certain reasonable (as in "commonly held to be reasonable", not as in "commonly held by the NYT to be reasonable") restrictions on gun ownership.Agreed.

In the second #3, in which Pres. Obama seeks to circumvent the decision of the Courts or Congress, I don't see it as a reason to revolt. The Courts can appeal to Congress for a remedy, and Congress can appeal to the Courts for a remedy. And the Congress can remove the President for serious wrong doing.

In terms of a quality differential, I do see a quality difference. Policy making under consensus is a better scenario than not. It's the goal.

so what position will your filter be when when the government orders you to put a bunch of Jewish kids in the oven?

I don't think it will come to that. Hard to predict exactly what response anyone will have to stressful situations. Anyone who claims otherwise has likely not been in that situation before. I think it would have to do with the penalties for non-compliance.

@dhIf the law requires you to haul Jews off to death camps, do you believe you have the responsibility to obey it? Would you obey it?

Yes.

I don't know the history. I suspect that Hitler didn't bother to make it legal to exterminate Jews. Too many people would have found out what was going on. Plenty of people were willing to just follow orders. That wasn't a successful defense after the war.

In the second #3, in which Pres. Obama seeks to circumvent the decision of the Courts or Congress, I don't see it as a reason to revolt. The Courts can appeal to Congress for a remedy, and Congress can appeal to the Courts for a remedy. And the Congress can remove the President for serious wrong doing.

Maybe not revolt, but since in that scenario Big Ears is just running his mouth without any force of law behind it there is certainly no duty to comply. He knows this, which is why if he does do something like that it will just be ordering certain government agencies to do something illegal, because, like you, they just follow orders.

Dh, you have demonstrated why you are not to be trusted. You would of fit in well being a concentration camp guard or a soldier of destroying the farms of desperate Hungarians. You are a despicable piece of trash dirtbag.

It can now be reported that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered criminal U.S. Treasury Secretary, money launderer and check kiter, Timothy Geithner, to resign in advance of the final implementation of the Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocols aka the bilateral tax agreement between the IMF, Austrian banks and the U.S. Treasury.

This would be very interesting, if true. Where is the documentation concerning this report? Has Scalia or Roberts actually said anything about this?

Tad, you ignorant moron. Do you realize that gun registration has historically preceded confiscation and mass murder or not? You sound like a piece of crap new york jew lawyer. As a jew, I hate jews like you.